Sunday, March 01, 2020

Two newly published articles on the astronomical origin of the solar and climate oscillations

I'd like to share two newly published articles that I think are important for understanding solar and climate oscillations. The first one is the most important and perhaps simplest to understand, the other is more technical.

Scafetta, N. : Solar Oscillations and the Orbital Invariant Inequalities of the Solar System. Solar Physics, 295, 33 (2020)

shared free copy:

I think this article just published on Solar Physics may be of great interest. Herein, all main oscillations found both in solar and climatic data found and discussed in the litterature for more than 50 years are theoretically identified. I remind that these are known as the cycles of Bray–Hallstatt (2100–2500 yr), Eddy (800–1200 yr), Suess–de Vries (200–250 yr), Jose (155–185 yr), Gleissberg (80–100 year ), the cycles of 55–65 yr and others. The same oscillations are found in the climatic series. The article highlights in an "elegant" way that these oscillations are in fact a particular subset of orbital oscillations which have been herein labeled as the "Orbital Invariant Inequalities" of the solar system due to the jovian planets. These orbital oscillations are important because they enjoy particular physical properties which make them theoretically able to induce remote synchronization processes on rotating systems such as the sun and the heliosphere and, therefore, can induce the observed solar oscillations.  One of the proposed hypothesis is that there may be a "lensing" effect of the planets in concentrating or in any case modulating the flow of particles towards the sun which could interfere with the solar dynamo process inducing a modulation. Evidence about solar-flare effects are also discussed using the litterature. The paper strongly supports the hypotheis that solar and climate oscillations have an astronomical origin which cannot be anymore ignored since alternative theories explaining these oscillations do not exist.

Scafetta, N., Milani, F. & Bianchini, A. : Multiscale Analysis of the Instantaneous Eccentricity Oscillations of the Planets of the Solar System from 13 000 BC to 17 000 AD. Astronomy Letters 45, 778–790 (2019).

shared free copy:

This second article proposes an analysis of the variations of the eccentricity of the planets of the solar system on the small scales, that is, up to the multi-millennial ones. The research, which is an extension of Milanchovich's studies to all planets and for the short time scales, is aimed at finding where the most significant oscillations that are observed both in the sun and in the climate are best seen in the solar system. Among all the cycles, those of 60 and about 900-1000 years observed in the orbital variation of Jupiter are impressive and they are very beautifully correlated with the similar cycles of the Earth's climate. Again, a planetary modulation of the streams of particles moving in space is suggested as the "secret" mechanism that explains solar and climate variations.

Via email from N.Scafetta

How Much Will the Green New Deal Cost Your Family?

The Green New Deal, a proposal to overhaul the entire economy in the name of fighting climate disaster, has driven the policy agenda for 2020 Democrats and the Democratic Party in general. These Democrats do not tell Americans exactly how much the hair-brained green scheme will cost the average American family, however. A new study from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Power the Future (PTF) estimated exactly how much this proposal will cost the average American family in terms of energy in eleven key battleground states.

"At a minimum, the Green New Deal would impose large and recurring costs on American households. We conclude that among the 11 states analyzed, the GND would cost a typical household a minimum of $74,287 in the first year of implementation. Among 10 of the states, excluding Alaska at $84,584, the average household burden of the GND in its first year is $75,168. For the subsequent four years, the average annual costs per household for 10 of the 11 states is $47,755, decreasing to $40,706 for ever after. The expenses in Alaska are more than $10,000 more per year per household," Kent Lassman and Daniel Turner reported.

The study focused on eleven states, most of which are considered pivotal "swing states" in the 2020 election: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

These numbers only represent the increased energy costs each household would likely face in these states — they do not capture the immense burdens of the other massive changes the Green New Deal aims to implement.

Lassman and Turner focused on the GND's "imposition of a significant set of constraints on energy generation." The Green New Deal would shift energy consumption from various sources to the electric grid. "In 2019 Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute analyzed the cost of electricity under the GND. His study looks at current electricity generation and estimates what it would cost to replace all non-GND compliant electricity generation—such as coal, natural gas, petroleum, and nuclear—with wind and solar power. Zycher also looks at the cost of emissions, transmission, backup power, and land for replacement capacity," the authors explained. Zycher's analysis was understated but useful for determining increased energy costs.

"Energy research firm Wood Mackenzie estimates that the greening of the U.S. power sector would cost approximately $35,000 per household and take 20 years. Wood Mackenzie estimate[s] a total price tag of some $4.7 trillion, including around $1.5 trillion to add 1,600 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity and $2.5 trillion of investments in 900 gigawatts of storage. Another $700 billion is estimated for new high transmission power lines to move that electricity from sun-drenched deserts and windswept plains to the urban areas where it would be used," they explained.

In a chilling paragraph, the CEI/PTF study noted that "[m]ost provisions of the GND are so broad and open-ended that the list of potential programs necessary to implement the program is only limited by the capacity of legislators to imagine new government programs. Therefore, it is impossible to calculate the maximum cost of the GND. However, other parts of the GND are more precise, sufficiently so that an approximate minimum cost estimate is attainable."

The study focused on additional electricity demand, costs associated with shipping and the logistics industry, new vehicles, and building retrofits. These costs represent low-end estimates for the Green New Deal's electricity costs.

CEI and PTF chose these eleven states because they have "diverse climates, geography, economies, and populations." Alaska, for example, is remote, sparsely populated, and cold. Iowa and Wisconsin share some characteristics with Alaska but have stronger diversity of power generation. Florida and North Carolina are economic powerhouses in a temperate-to-warm climate. New Hampshire is a small state well connected with larger economies in a cold climate. New Mexico has a small population but a large area and is situated between large states. Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are large in terms of geography, economy, and population in a mild-to-colder climate.

This study built on a previous study finding that the Green New Deal would cost the average American family at least a quarter of a million dollars in the first five years. That study examined Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. This new study added more swing states, such as Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

If you do not live in any of those states, you can estimate the rough cost of the Green New Deal for your household by comparing your state with the regional characteristics of each state. If you live in California, for example, your household costs would be similar to those of Florida and Colorado in key respects. If you live in Maine, your household costs would likely be similar to those of New Hampshire.

These astronomical costs are a low-end estimate for the Green New Deal, and they illustrate the wide-ranging radical nature of the Green New Deal. A Heritage Foundation study found that taxing the rich at 100 percent would still fall trillions short of the costs for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

Democrats need to face tough scrutiny over this radical legislation.


Dems Want to Drill the Economy With Fracking Ban

Many Democrats want to ban hydraulic fracturing — a.k.a. fracking — for oil and natural gas. Their ostensible goal is saving the planet, but their ban would fail to reduce emissions while triggering a recession. Sounds like a typical Democrat “deal.”

The American Petroleum Institute (API) released a study on the consequences of the Democrats’ desired policy. The API summarizes that a fracking ban “would cost up to 7.5 million American jobs in 2022 alone, lead to a cumulative GDP loss of $7.1 trillion by 2030, slash household incomes by $5,400 annually, increase household energy costs by more than $600 per year and reduce farm incomes by 43 percent due to higher energy costs.”

Why the stunning impact? API notes, “More than 95% of U.S. natural gas and oil wells today are developed using hydraulic fracturing. Technologically, fracking is the chief reason the U.S. is the world’s leading natural gas and oil producer.” Cut off the tap, and everyone suffers.

And yet we have Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sponsoring the Fracking Ban Act. “Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe, it has resulted in more earthquakes, and it’s highly explosive. To top it all off, it’s contributing to climate change,” Sanders insists. “If we are serious about clean air and drinking water, if we are serious about combating climate change, the only safe and sane way to move forward is to ban fracking nationwide.”

Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t bother with legislation, declaring she would “ban fracking everywhere” on Day One in the White House.

But their claims are false. The U.S. leads the world in decreasing emissions precisely because of fracking. And there is plenty of evidence that fracking does not cause the harm Sanders and his cadre of ecofascists claim.

By the way, we rebuked Barack Obama last week for falsely claiming credit for economic growth. What did cause that growth? Energy production through fracking.

Democrats are desperate for recession, however, so their efforts to stoke one through impeachment, coronavirus panic, and various taxes and regulations are not surprising.


Greta Thunberg addresses school strikes in Bristol

Thousands of children closed down Bristol city centre on Friday as they joined Greta Thunberg on a mass school strike over climate change.

Protesters as young as six were undeterred by heavy rain and gathered on College Green where they waited to be addressed by the 17-year-old Swedish activist, before beginning a march around the city.

Avon and Somerset Police are warning parents that the event, organised by Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate, has “grown so large” that it could be unsafe for their children.

Specially arranged coaches arrived from all parts of the country bringing schoolchildren, some accompanied by their parents. Bristol Strike 4 Climate, the organisers, estimated that about 30,000 people attended.


When a poet is a better prophet than the prophets

It would be difficult to be a worse prophet than the Greenies.  Starting from Paul Ehrlich, they repeatedly make these confident prophecies that in some number of years disasters will befall us unless we do something that they want. But it just doesn't happen.  When the prophesied year rolls around, life just goes on as usual.

During Australia's recent summer bushfire season, all sorts of Greenie-influenced people screeched that the fires were the result of global warming and unless we shut down our our entire electricity generation industry the fires would get worse. They were so shrill about their claims that PM Morrison came under great pressure to "do more" about global warming.

And then came something that no Greenie had prophesied -- showing how little they understood of the events concerned.  It rained. And DID it rain!  Concerns about fire were rapidly replaced with concerns about flooding. The Greenie prophecies that the fires would go on until we did something about global warming were thoroughly falsified.  The Greenies basically did not know anything about how Australia's climate worked.

But a poet did.  In 1908 Dorothea MacKellar described Australia's climate with limpid simplicity, as being "Droughts and flooding rains".  She knew how Australia's climate went even if the Greenies did not.  It happened this year exactly how she said it always does: Drought followed by flood.  She was a good observer.

The Greenies were no observers at all.  We were constantly regaled with assurances that the recent fires were the worst ever when in fact the 1974/75 fires consumed a much bigger area.  Lies on top of ideology were all the Greenies had to offer.

And there is no doubt that the drought contributed to the buildup of fuel in the forests and made the fires worse.  Dry vegetation burns well.  But what was the cause of the drought?  Was it simply a recurrent feature of the Australian climate?  No way! said the Greenies. It was caused  by global warming.

For instance we have the opening sentence from a recent rather emptyheaded article in a prestigious medical journal (JAMA) which says:  "There is increasing scientific consensus that climate change is the underlying cause of the prolonged dry and hot conditions that have increased the risk of extreme fire weather in Australia".

But that is magical thinking. Global warming would cause MORE rain, not less.  Warmer oceans would evaporate off more water vapour which would come down as more rain.  The temperature that causes drought is cooling, not warming.  So again the global warming faith flies in the face of the facts

Most global warming activism is purely political with agitators  such Thunberg and Occasio-Cortez knowing nothing of the detailed climate statistics. And it is mostly from them that the wild predictions come. Scientists  -- such as Ezekiel -- who do know the facts are much more cautious in their predictions.


For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: